W's Opinion was as he notifies it to be Mr. W. that knows what his own mind was better than any complains that he mistakes and wrongs him On one side I accounted here is Confidence but on the other Knowledge I had passed therefore this Judgment that Mr. Lobb was to be Excused but Mr. Acquitted There is Obscurity not Error I had thought in the words of Mr. W. there is Mistake not Malice in the Collection of Mr. Lobb But now I cannot I must confess in Point of Conscience let this go I cannot say there is Mistake herein but rather Sagacity in Mr. Lobb and I cannot say there is no Error of Mr. W. herein but rather that he was one then not come to any Consistency about the Point and that it is best for him to be in Suspense still seeing that which we three suppose to be the Error some others more weighty than we take to be Truth If the Moral Law said such a one should be in force as it was to Adam no Man upon one Act of Disobedience could be saved Therefore that manner of strict Obligation ceaseth unto sinful Man for ever This being so that what Mr. W's Opinion was at his first Writing I am not sure insomuch as I can bring in no Billa vera but an Ignoramus in my last Verdict to the Brethren that are some time to meet about it And that it is like his Opinion was not then so digested as that himself can tell it Nay that it is no matter or very little matter whether his Opinion was so or otherwise seeing the Opinion Pro or Con may be good enough at least inoffensive either of them if but stated well Nay yet that it may be peradventure in other Differences between our Brethren no otherwise than so as it is in this I must come to that Conclusion at last which I came to long since and stand to it that it is not upon a Union in Opinion or upon certain Theses drawn up into such a Latitude of Words as all may subscribe but upon a Union in forbearing and bearing with one another in all things but what is of necessity to Salvation that our Concord must be re-established PART II. I Have done here with the Arbitration which I count Mr. W. and Mr. Lobb appointed me that is as to this particular matter and as for any other Points between them they are not my Province Only so far as the Middle Doctrine of Justification which I maintain is concerned I cannot but take notice how one word and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used but once in one place is the ground almost of all their Dissention It is the word Surety Heb. 7.22 This word hath been so strained or rather grosly taken not only by the Antinomian but our Divines ordinarily as if Christ were such a Surety for us in the Covenant of Works as bound with us in the same Bond so coarse is their Speech insomuch as when he performed the Duty and suffered the Penalty in our behalf they reckon it done in our Persons so that God looks on the Believer in Law sense as having perfectly obeyed and suffered in his Surety and consequently that he receiving this Righteousness or making it his by Faith does stand justified in that Righteousness of Christ by the Law of Works If Mr. Lobb or any Brother it is all alike who they be hath used words to this Sense they must be rectified Mr. W. is not to come to them but they to Mr. W. They do heinously err says Mr. Baxter and subvert the Gospel who says that Christ's Righteousness is so imputed to us as that God reputeth Christ to have been perfectly Holy and suffered though not in our Natural yet in the Legal or Civil Person of the Sinner or Believer as their strict and proper Representer and so to have our selves fulfilled all Righteousness in him or by him and thereby be Justified There are more words by way of Aggravation which I fill up with and thereby be Justified because they tend only to shew what the allowing so much at the beginning does draw after it This Doctrine I have said is coarse I add and grounded on a Mistake which I have inculcated in my Book of Justification Divines indeed ordinarily Papists and Protestants supposing that it is by the Law the Law of Works that we shall be Judged do fall out and must fall out one against and one with another But let them reflect and understand aright that it is not the Law of Works but the Law of Grace or Law of Faith not the Law but the Gospel Rom. 1.16 James 2.12 before noted is and shall be the Rule of Judgment when the Law is indeed the Rule of Living they must end the Quarrel between most of them Upon this * Hence Contarenus though a Papist and a Cardinal who defines also Justificari to be justum fieri propterea justum haberi hath yet these words Ego prorsus existimo piè Christianè dici quod debeamus niti justitia Christi nobis donata non autem gratia nobis inhaerente Haec enim justitia nostra est inchoata imperfecta quae tueri nos non potest quin in multis offendamus Idcirco in conspectu Dei non possumus ob hanc justitiam nostram haberi justi boni Sed justitia Christi nobis donata est perfecta quae omnino placet oculis Dei. Haec ergo sola certa stabili nitendum est ob eam solam credere nos justificari coram Deo id est justos haberi dici justos Cont. de Justificatione account when the Protestant judges that we must have a Righteousness that answers the Law as his or else he cannot at all be justified he does make Christ such a Surety and devise such a Commutation of Persons as suits to that Conception But he that is clear as to the Rule by which we shall be judged will be contented with such a Suretiship and Commutation only as the Scripture I was upon saying as Mr. W. does allow him For Christ's Suretiship in the first place I do not fancy so much to be made of it even as Mr. W. does That he was a Surety on God's part and then on our part and I know not what The true and faithful God I hope has no need of any Surety on his part to make His good I count that but idle he says to excuse it And if Christ was a strict proper in humane sense proper Surety of the new Covenant on our part to make Ours good then must all of us be saved because the Gospel Covenant I hold is Universal and not made with the Elect only That which I conceive then as to Christ's Suretiship is that he was to do and did all that was to be done for Satisfaction to God in our behalf for procuring the Gospel-Covenant for the lost World This I apprehend to be the main
them into his Church from among the Nations It may be objected That the very mentioning the Prophecy of Jeremiah by the Author to the Hebrews does prove it to be applied to his times it does prove it indeed not to be in any time before and so not at their return from Babylon and that the mentioning that Covenant does prove it to be meant of the Gospel-Covenant But I deny it The mentioning of a Promise made only to the Jews is no proof of it to be made to all the Elect and the mention of a Covenant to be made with them after those days is no proof that it is meant of a Covenant made with us at the present day He does not say as Christ did when he opened the Book at a place prophecying of him This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your Ears for the day is not yet come the day of God's making this second Covenant with the Jews for I must inculcate that it is a second as to them only the Author cites the Prophecy in respect to his matter in hand which is that the Jewish Dispensation their Priesthood and Covenant was already ceased the Promise of a new to come shewing its intended Abolishment Which arguing is good and becoming Sacred Scripture though the time be to come For there 's nothing here argued but at present is true notwithstanding the peculiarity of this Prophecy is yet to be made good The Covenant of Grace in the Substance of it is one and the same since Adam's Fall to this day and to this time yet to be accomplished But the diverse Administrations of it were to be at several Seasons It was in the Promise only till Christ and then he ratified it by his Blood and promulgated it by his Apostles which all stands good very consistently with another Administration as to them upon the Jews Vocation I know now there are twenty Questions might be raised here by way of Objection or for the sake of Elucidation which I was a little thinking upon but I will leave them every one to others Meditations If what I have started be good there is an end of all Difficulty in regard to the Conditionality of the Gospel-Covenant and what I or others have answered to those Texts may be spared For there is nothing considerable but from these Texts that is against us I conclude If it be good there is some body or other at some time or other will make it good If it be not good I will be at my liberty to stand where I do and disbelieve it again as well as any other PART III IN the Point of Justification Mr. W. made this grant and presuming upon it in this Paper he tells me I have truly represented his words to wit that Besides the Effects being made ours the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers though I told him Mid. way of Just p. 56. that this as far as I can see is to boggle and yield our Cause to his Adversaries It is in vain really if it be not sinful daubing to be bewailed in the consequence of it for Mr. W. to argue against Christ's Suretiship and Commutation of Persons in the ill sense which he intends only to confute when that ill sense and all that the Antinomian says besides depends on this Supposition that Christ's Righteousness is made ours more or otherwise than in the Effects For my part therefore I do plainly here as plainly before say that if our Divines will have any other Imputation of Christ's Righteousness than quoad fructus effectus they must for me have none at all For when the Phrase of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is not once found in Scripture it must be gratis allowed them and if they will not accept this I can allow no more To open my self The common Opinion of Protestants is that we are Justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and that this Righteousness is imputed so as God does reckon Christ's Righteousness for ours that it may answer the Law of Works according to which they conceive we are to be Justified As the Scripture says Faith is imputed for Righteousness so do they think Christ's Righteousness is For they understand Faith Objectivé in sensu correlativo for Christ's Righteousness received by Faith When the Scripture says no where that his Righteousness is imputed as I noted but now and much less that it is imputed for Righteousness there being no good Sense thereof which is like to hold Of these Divines some and the most do understand by Christ's Righteousness the Righteousness of his Life and Death his Active and Passive Obedience both God does reckon us say they to have suffered the Penalty of the Law in his Death and so we are free from Condemnation And being Recti in curia there is required father a Righteousness of perfect Obedience to this Law for a Right to Heaven and so his Active Obedience is imputed also Others being convinced of a manifest Inconsistency here seeing if the Active Obedience of Christ be imputed to us which is to reckon us that we have neither omitted any Duty nor committed any Sin there needs no Imputation of his Sufferings they maintain that Christ's Active Obedience was Justitia Personae a Righteousness necessary to himself as a Man to fulfil But his Passive seeing he was Sinless was and must be for us only and in our stead and that is the Justitia meriti which is imputed to Sinners for their Justification It is the choicest of our Protestant Divines beyond Sea next Luther and Calvin that go this way But there have been some more pondering Thoughts on this Doctrine of Imputation by such as apprehend that as the Righteousness of Christ being an Accident inhering in him as its proper Subject and incapable to be in us also so neither can it be in se imputed to us or reckoned so as ours whether it be the Righteousness of his Life or Death To be accounted of God to be as Righteous as Christ himself is too hard of Digestion and therefore they will allow an Imputation but understand it sensibly that Christ's Righteousness is indeed imputed to Believers but not in se as ours in it self but so as to be ours only in the Fruits and Effects Thus that masterfully learned Man Forbs in his Modestae questiones and some others Which giving Mr. Baxter the Notion he hath so cultivated it delivering his Judgment that way and that in so many Books and so largely as it is hard for any to gainsay or to say that he does fully comprehend him He hath prudently used Bradshaw as to the making up Christ's Satisfaction of both Obediences Active and Passive according to that Mediatorial Covenant as we speak of it between his Father and him For this was the Father's Pleasure or Mediatorial Command This Commandment I received of my Father that he should repair the Honour of his broken Law and answer
this ground is it that he opposes Grace and Works so often as he does in the business of Justification By Grace are ye saved not of Works Eph. 2.8 9. Who hath saved us not according to our Works but his Grace 1 Tim. 1.9 If by Grace then not of Works Rom. 11.6 Not by Works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us and yet by Regeneration it follows and renewing of the Holy Ghost Tit. 3.5 How is that Are we saved by at least not without Works wrought in us by the Spirit or Grace which regenerates us and yet Not of Works Again Not of Works least any Man should boast Eph. 2.9 10. yet it follows we are created in Christ Jesus to good Works To answer this St. Austine and from him the Schools distinguish of Opera Naturae and Opera Gratiae We are not saved by Works or according to Works done in our own strength but by Works done by Grace But is this the Apostles meaning No I have shewn in my Book of Justification that one thing of three wherein Austine was out and hath mislead the Schools is this Notion of Grace By grace he understands still this inherent Grace or Operation of God's Spirit in us when Paul understands it of that without us his Favour or Condescention to us Not of Works but of Grace is all one as not of Desert but of Favour only Grace is Mercy without or contrary to Merit Now when the Papist receives the Solution mentioned the Protestant generally will have all Works though of the Regneerate to be but Rags and Christ's Righteousness alone to save us But they are both out for Paul's meaning is plainer than they think Not by Works of Righteousness we have done The Righteousness which the Jew hath done is living according to the Law of Moses The Righteousness which the Gentile hath done is his living according to the Law of Nature There is neither one or the other that fulfil that Righteousness as answers God's Law so as it should be able to save him and therefore it is of Grace or Mercy that any are saved By this Key must that hard Text also be opened Rom. 9.16 So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth Mercy What Is there any that find Mercy or are saved but they that will and run I answer No but there is none of them that will and run do will and run so as would save them if God did not pardon their Failings and accept their Endeavours through the Merits of Christ The meaning is that seeing no Man hath those Works the Law requires to Salvation it is of Grace or of Mercy that we are accepted to Life on Another Condition Well now it being of Grace that we are Saved or Justified in opposition to Work 's and it being necessary that those Works be understood of such as the Law requires to Justifie us that is Perfect Works Meritorious Works which if we had we might boast and expect the Reward as of Debt and the reason why we are not justified by Works being because we have them not it follows that there is another Righteousness which is to be had short of that the Law requires to Justification not Perfect not Meritorious not such as would make the Reward due of Justice but such as needs Grace for the Acceptance Therefore it is of Faith that it might be of Grace and that I say which we must have for God cannot account a Man Righteous which is to justifie him that is not Righteous his Judgment being according to Truth And what Righteousness then is that a Man must have and be found in but that we call our Evangelical Righteousness the Righteousness of Faith The Just shall live by Faith Note it he is Just Righteous that lives or is Justified But how Righteous Not according to the Law but the Gospel Hence is the Gospel called the Ministration of Righteousness Hence do we read of a Righteousness brought in by the Messiah slain in Daniel Hence that we are chosen in Christ to be Holy That he hath redeemed us from Iniquity That the end or one end of his Death or Redemption is to make us Righteous as our Divines still say but I never found any satisfactory account of it by them The matter in short is you may see it fuller in my mentioned Book p. 43. that by Christ's Death a Law of Grace is obtained upon which our Faith and Repentance is accepted to Life or imputed for Righteousness or we made Righteous so when by the Law of Works there is none no not one Righteous or ever could be in the World Hence is this Righteousness called the Righteousness of God as being ordained and accepted by him instead of that I even now called the Righteousness of Man And which is of God by Faith instead of such Works which the Law required to Justification Hence lastly are we said to be Justified by Faith the most single and plain reason whereof is because that Faith to a true Believer is imputed for Righteousness Rom. 4.22 23 24. And Faith is said to be imputed to him for Righteousness because God does account such a one Righteous and deals with him as such in freeing him from Punishment and accepting him to Salvation through the Death and Obedience of our Redeemer Justification in which sense also he calls him the God of his Righteousness When as for any acceptance of him through the Righteousness of the Messiah to come a Righteousness without him made his by Faith which could abide God's district Justice I find not the Footstep of one such Thought To rely therefore I will say on Christ's Righteousness as ours without regard to any thing within or without regard to the Condition is self-deceiving But to rely on God's Mercy and on Christ's Merits for acceptance of what we do and Pardon for the Failings is Substantial Religion and of Justification by Faith in Christ's Blood a good Exposition I have now something more to be farther pondered on this Point The chief is That what I have said before about the Commutation of Persons that it is to be held in regard to the Impetration not Application of our Redemption I would offer over again likewise in regard to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness I have said and say it over that this Phrase is not found in Scripture but I will acknowledge the thing in the true sense of it which is this Christ Jesus did really obey the Law and suffer its Penalty for us which is in our place or stead To do a thing now in my stead is for another to do it so as to save me the doing it Christ's Suffering and Obeying was to save us that Suffering and Obeying No says Mr. W. somewhere Christ suffered indeed in our stead that we might not suffer but not obeyed that we might not obey But if Christ
that must be put on them if right is indeed to confound these two things which I and Mr. W. and Mr. Baxter too do so carefully distinguish otherwise that is Christ's Suffering in our stead and in our Persons Let these two Expressions then be understood as one and the same thing and either of them may be used If the saying Christ suffered in our Persons as Christ suffered in our stead be taken in the first sense of In our stead so as to draw on these Consequences I say we must deny that he suffered in our Persons or dyed in our stead the Saying is Antinomian But if it be made to signifie no more than Suffering in our stead in the second Interpretation of In our stead that is so as not to draw those Consequences the Saying is Orthodox and we may allow it Thus much is safe and sure from whence it appears that some Distinction here in other words the members whereof Membra dividentia sunt contraria being made such as all these said Consequences may be attributed to one of them and none of them to the other so that we could simply only by granting the one Branch and denying the other reconcile in this matter might do better Suppose then I should recall those words a little above where I count or hitherto have Christ's Suffering and Obeying in our Persons and our Obeying and Suffering in Christ's Person to be all one and instead of distinguishing between in our Stead and in our Persons make these to be two things I say make this the Distinction upon which to set all right by saying that Christ obeyed and suffered in our Persons understanding only in our stead in the right sense declared but denying that we suffered and obeyed in his Person or that God does look on us as legally to have obeyed and satisfied in him because of those Consequences I say still before mentioned which if proposed by way of Argument against it none can answer Let Dr. Bates try and if he cannot Mr. Lobb must not in Modesty think he can Would not this do our work I crave here Mr. W's Attention because in a Discourse I had last with him he distinguished thus He held he said a Commutation of Person but not of Persons I ask'd him if he had read the Distinction in the Civil Law and if he had his Author I should like it well We know the Scripture says Christ dyed for us and obeyed for us and that is we say in our room in our stead It no where says we sinned in his stead our Sins were not for him though he bare them He suffered and obeyed in our Person as in our stead I have said there is a Commutation of Person but we suffered not and obeyed not in his Person seeing these Consequences aforesaid follow upon that so there is not of Persons And what if Mr. W. and I should have fallen here into the same Conception Nay what if Dr. Bates whose Book is cited against Mr. W. should have been so profoundly careful of his words that though he hath so amply owned the Sinner and Christ as his Surety to be one in Law Judicially one as to the paying our Debts or bearing our Punishment or in doing and suffering what we ought to have done and suffered hath yet never express'd them One so as that God accounts us to have obeyed and suffered in him I cannot say it but if he hath then are we very lucky in this And why may we not agree thus as I say with that worthy and beloved Man Christ was indeed Our Substitute but we not Christ's He obeyed and suffered in our Person but not we in His and if we did not obey and suffer in his Person then must not his Righteousness be Ours neither but in the Effects Let the Doctor choose here whether he will cleave to his old Friend Mr. Baxter or his new Mr. W. and let Mr. W. consider himself who is likeliest to have seen deeper he or Mr. Baxter into the Bowels of this Point This I stand upon God looks not on us as the Performers of what Christ performed in our behalf and in our behalf in our stead or room to suffer I have said and said is to suffer that We might not suffer To say then that Christ's Suffering is Ours or accounted Ours is to forget what Suffering in anothers room does mean If Christ suffered and obeyed I press it in our stead place room that we might not suffer and obey in the sense in due place explained then did not then could not he suffer and obey so as that God should look on us as if we have suffered and obeyed in him This is a Contradiction and he that says Christ's Righteousness it self is imputed to us as ours is involved in it Mr. Rutherford argues If Christ paid the Law Debt of Satisfaction which the Elect in their Persons should have paid and thereby freed them from the same he sustained the Person of the Elect or our Persons in his Sufferings Co. Op. 251. I answer We will grant to him here the use of such words Christ sustained our Person or suffered in our Persons in this sense quoted that through Satisfaction given by him to the Law-giver Elect Believers are freed from satisfying the Law themselves the Language thus pruned for the Law was not executed or Law-Debt paid but Satisfaction given to save its Execution on the Debtor But when he confounds the Use with the other Sense also as one that in Christ's sustaining our Person God does account us to have suffered and satisfied in his he is fallen into this Inconsistency that neither Rutherford nor Bates I doubt nor Williams himself hath sufficiently observed What is done in our stead or in our Person in the one Sense cannot be so in the other If God I must say it again will have Christ to sustain our Persons in his Sufferings that we might not Suffer then must we not also sustain His as that God should account us to have suffered This is the Inconsistency and the Reader must pardon me the forced Repetition Mr. W. who I say is included here does tell us Man made Righteous p. 62 63. That the Righteousness of Christ as the performed Condition of the Reward was a Faederal Righteousness above what was to be Mans Righteousness by the Law of Works which he exemplifies in several Instances I argue against him hereupon Therefore the very Righteousness of Christ it self cannot be imputed to us but is imputed to us in the Effects It was in our stead therefore not ours in it self It was in our stead and therefore ours in the Benefit of it and in the Benefit only Thus much for Mr. W. with whom I am concerned because we being so near of Opinion I would have that Satisfaction from him as to take these Matters between us into his second Thoughts and to consider what I offer so as if there be light
as near as they can to the Arminian but either of them carefully avoiding the Danger of both Errors Under the first sort I must rank Mr. Cole and Mr. Mather and such as will say here with Mr. Rutherford that this Promise is part of the Covenant of Grace not the whole Covenant and that this Promise of Faith or the first Grace being part of the Covenant-Blessings and the Fruit of Christ's Purchase for the Elect the Covenant in this respect is without any Antecedent Condition But the first Grace being given in order to obtain farther Blessings that first Grace I suppose in their account is a Consequent Condition in regard to the Connexion between them to those Benefits and so save they themselves from Antinomianism Under the Latter sort I had thought I might have ranked Mr. W. with my self but I will name one more worthy than we for his most acute and strong parts Mr. Woodbridge who does deny this Promise to be part of the Covenant of Grace made with Fallen Man But that it is either an indefinite Promise which God will make good on whom he pleases in their use of means or a Promise in regard to the Elect not made to them but made to Christ in the Covenant of Redemption if we may frame such a thing in God's Decrees as it is distinguished from that made with Man or Gospel-Covenant which requires Faith and Repentance wrought in us by God's first Grace as the Condition and upon that Condition and that as performed by us though through that Grace does grant us Remission and Eternal Life And this first Grace God gives to this end that his Elect may in their time enter this Covenant and so have the benefits of it I signified this to Mr. W. in my Sheet but he in his is so full of himself as he will take his Friends by the halves I never wrote says he that Faith and Repentance are not Covenant-Blessings But Mr. Lobb I perceive thought and so do I that this is consonant to what he should write No Man can have any Benefit of the Covenant that is not in Covenant That which is given of God to his Elect as pre-requisite to enter Covenant is given them before they are in Covenant and therefore is not any of the Benefits of it This is what I meant and I for my part therefore do say that Faith and Repentance are the Conditions and not the Benefits of the Gospel-Covenant For if they be granted Blessings thereof then is there no Condition to its Benefits and so the Covenant is not Conditional according to the sense of those that oppose us The Benefits of the Covenant are God's part to perform and if Faith and Repentance were part of those Benefits it were well indeed for us for then must all within the Church be saved The Minister does on God's part declare the Covenant in his Preaching the Word and Seals it in delivery of the Sacraments and that to every one If every one therefore hath not this Faith and Repentance given him either this Faith and Repentance is not indeed one of the Benefits or God is not Faithful in Covenant this Universal Gospel-Covenant which cannot be argued but with a reverential Aversation He hath one thing a little higher to the same effect Sir you omit one part of the Objection that I should say the Conditions are Legal I never called them so I give five Instances of the difference between the Condition of the Covenant of Works and Grace Here is our Cause yielding still but I must beg his Pardon for he says in this he knows not what The Instances he mentions are nothing to the purpose And as he said before he never wrote that Faith and Repentance are not Benefits of the Covenant when he should have wrote so So he says here he never called them Legal Conditions when he needed not scruple it Mr. Lobb put in the word Legal in opposition only to Testamentary and when he grants a Testamentary Condition he does I count under a more soft word ingenuously grant us our Point It is in Mr. Lobb's Peaceable Enquiry which Mr. W. it seems knows not To Mr. Lobb then I say If I have an Estate given me by Will or Testament upon a certain Condition I must perform that Condition or else I cannot have that Estate though it be Gift But the Condition being performed it gives me Right to that Estate by that Testament and the Law will make it good It is so as to a Promise and as to the Covenant The Performance gives us Right by not its own Merit but vertue of that Promise that Covenant This I affirm says Mr. W. himself the Promise conveighs the Title as soon as the Terms of the Grant are answered Gospel Truth p. 61. That thing which being performed gives Right to the Benefit is a true legal Condition in Mr. Lobb's sense There is nothing else to be understood by it Legal is not opposed here to Evangelical but to Not rightful As I said therefore but now that Faith and Repentance are not the Benefits but the Conditions of the Gospel-Covenant So say I they are Antecedent legal Evangelically legal legal in the sense of Mr. Lobb's seeming denial thereof Conditions of those Benefits And this I did not omit as Mr. W. thinks but did de industria own it in my Sheet in these words If we do not make Faith such a Condition as Antecedes the Benefits and that being performed gives right to them that we may not mince the matter whereby I meant the aforesaid distinction it is but trifling to maintain that the Covenant hath any Conditions If we confess our Sins God is Just and Faithful to forgive them They have right to the Tree of Life that keep his Commandments To return then now to the new Heart promised in the Prophets to the House of Israel when the days come that they may enter this Covenant so as to break it no more I have one thing to offer here to publick consideration Our Divines interpret these Texts to belong to the Elect to them only all the Elect with whom this Covenant is made from Eternity in Christ say some supposing This and the Covenant of Redemption to be one Now it is to me a question whether they be not quite out because it is manifest in all the places in the Prophets and that to the Hebrews that this Promise and Covenant to be made is peculiar still to the Jews and that confined to a certain time Behold the days come saith the Lord which is expressed over and over after their scattering and recollection Let us look the Scripture The first Text that we have wherein this Absolute Promise is to be found is in Deut. 30.6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy Seed Well but when will the Lord do this They were almost all uncircumcised in Heart at present and continued so during
Conscience of it also is hereby so resolved that under King James we would not be Papists under those that succeed We will not be Slaves * Having said this for the People I must say one thing also for the King out of the same Principle There is the Positive and Negative Power of Rulers According to our English Government it is true and to be held that the King can Positively do nothing but according to Law But it being true also and to be considered that the Supreme Law in all Polities is the Common Good if a Prince in the use of his Power only which is Negative should upon occasion do something otherwise than Law for the Benefit of the Subject Bona fide and not his private Ends I do believe both Politically and as a Divine that he may have a good Conscience in it and when he has that he is not to account he acts then against the Law but according to it seeing he does Govern in such a Case by the Supreme Law unto which all others are Subordinate Not long before King Charles's Death the Justices were sending Mr. Baxter to Prison for Conventicling but he hearing of it and being told it might kill the ill good Man out of his kind Nature sends word immediately he would have him forborne To have controul'd the Law to a Man's hurt it had been Tyranny but when it was only for Good without detriment to any who could open his Mouth against it It is to be supposed no Law-givers can foresee all Cases that may happen and when Equity and a good Conscience is against the Letter of the Law thus much I think Justifiable by the Old Covenant Oath where the King Sware to execute the Laws Cum Justitia Miserecordia If not it will be by that Power our Kings have of granting a Nolle Profequi in some cases to Offenders and much more by that of Pardoning All ad libitum which a Majore ad Minus cannot but warrant more than this It is fit that Kings before they Swear do understand their Oath to have this Construction and to know that which is much more to the purpose that any Law which is against God or Nature that is which is against the Law of Nature or Word of God or the Common Good is really in foro Conscientiae No Law so that in the Non-Prosecution thereof they are not to be condemned Nay if a Prince by Malversation even Positive or Privative shall render himself Obnoxious to God and the People it is good yet for the Subject to bear with him as we do with Storms so long as we can but if the Case comes to that once as the Nation is in danger of Ruin by it the Doctrine of Non-resistance any longer than we can help our selves is perfect Ignorance of our State or raving Obstinacy Salus Populi Suprema lex esto Habetüs Sententiam meam in Causa hac gravissima J. H. The Postscript to the Reader THERE are several Pieces that at several Times upon several Subjects I have written called The Middle Way One is the Middle Way of Justification which I printed in the year 71 or 72 and reprinted lately 95 upon the account of our Brethrens Difference about that Point In that second Edition I have gathered up all Passages that concern that Subject out of the rest of those Papers to put them to it and took advantage from certain Exceptions against Mr. Williams to add something that I thought wanting in a single Sheet and have here supplied what was yet in my Mind to say farther upon this Occasion Now if the Reader shall bid the Bookseller stitch these six Sheets that one Sheet so called and those eight or nine together and then shall take time to read them and notice of what he reads unless he thinks this Point of Justification be such as is not worthy his Time or Thoughts which was an Article of so great Concern to our first Reformers and does not meet with something or other in them and that as an Original which may serve at least Vice cotis to whet his own Understanding upon them then is it not I my self only but two of our most eminent Brethren while alive as appears by their hands put to one of my Papers are deceived I will add that if Mr. W. therefore shall not now set himself to peruse them and finding any such Matter which he can improve or make out better for me than I have done if he does it not then am I farther disappointed in one End of this present Work as also of my believed Estimation of Mr. Williams For according to what a Man's Mind is most upon in such Disputes as these the Investigation of Truth or the Defence of ones self such is his value more or less Having yet room the fear of the want whereof made me put those two Paragraphs p. 29. into a Marginal Note that should else have been part of the Book I will use it to supply one thing lacking in the single Sheet mentioned The Sacrifice and Righteousness of Christ's Death and Life is that which hath procured Pardon and Salvation to every Believing Sinner upon the account of that Satisfaction God as Rector hath received by it so that being Legislator also and above Law he might with Demonstration too of his Righteousness relax and hath relaxed or dispensed with his Law of Works requiring another Condition to those Benefits in a new one the Law of Grace or the Gospel This Pardon now and Life or Grant thereof upon Condition being the Grand Fruits of our Redemption it is a Question between Mr. W. and I whether the Condition it self also be a Fruit of Christ's Purchase which if it be not derives not yet from our Free Will but the Grace of Election It is not agreeable to my Genius to make Christ's Redemption which I would have One thing and Universal to be differently insluxive on the Elect and others I have opened this Apprehension of mine in that single Sheet mentioned and there are two Considerations moreover offered against the received Opinion which I desire Mr. W. to weigh Honestly and if he can to solve me the Difficulty or if he cannot to come with me to this Composition The Lord Christ by Redeeming the World and consequently by his Death hath obtained a Right of Dominion over it and by that Right does give that Condition to whom he will Acts 5.31 But though Faith therefore and Repentance in this remote way about may be said to be obtained by Christ's Death as he hath obtained thereby a Power or Right of giving it I deny it to be the immediate Purchase or direct Fruit of it I deny that Faith is a Fruit of Christ's Death in the same manner as Pardon and Life is upon Condition of Faith I deny that it proceeds from Satisfaction given to God's Justice which Christ's Death was though it may from his Merit or Redundancy of it as all other Good does seeing in his Name it is or through his Merits that we ask all things at the Hands of God as Health and Wealth and the like Blessings which we cannot say yet Christ died that we should have Again Christ came and died to Save Man by restoring him to Righteousness from whence he is fallen Now the Righteousness of Nature we never can be in this Life restored to and there is therefore a Righteousness of Grace which God hath ordained in room of that to Save us revealed in the Gospel and it is called the Righteousness of God because of this his Ordination By the Obedience of Christ we are said to be made Righteous and the Righteousness of God in him or by the Means of him as one has it But how by the Means of him Why by his Death but this way about still Christ died to procure for us a Covenant with another Condition than that of the Old which performing we become Righteous that never could be so else but mark it when the Condition is purchased the Performance comes not from thence but from the Free Gift of God In the mean time this Mercy that God hath ordained and doth accept of such a Condition as we do or can perform must not pass without Resentment Blessed be the God of Heaven for some Sense and Knowledge of this in these Sheets Blessed be God that it is not a Righteousness of the Law required of us but a Righteousness of the Gospel Blessed be God it is not by a Righteousness of Works that we are Saved but a Righteousness the Failings whereof are pardoned and the little Done accepted through the alone Merits of Christ Jesus Which when they had read they rejoyced for the Consolation Deo Gloria mihi Condonatio J. H. FINIS